GR 112046; (July, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112046 July 11, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Anthony Ong Co
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Anthony Ong Co, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila for violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended. The prosecution evidence established that on March 15, 1993, a buy-bust operation was conducted by police operatives in Binondo, Manila. SPO2 Romulo Ariel Agtay, acting as a poseur-buyer, successfully purchased approximately 271.98 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from the appellant. The exchange occurred in the appellant’s car near Fortune Hotel, after which Agtay gave a pre-arranged signal leading to the appellant’s arrest. The seized substance was confirmed to be shabu by the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The defense presented a bare denial. The appellant claimed he was summoned to the hotel by a certain Mr. Chua, where he was allegedly ambushed, kidnapped, tortured, and framed by police officers. He denied any knowledge or possession of the prohibited drugs and asserted that the buy-bust operation never occurred.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of a regulated drug.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. It ruled that the testimonies of the law enforcers were positive, convincing, and consistent, and they were presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of proof to the contrary. The appellant’s defense of denial and frame-up, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the categorical and straightforward narration of the prosecution witnesses regarding the consummated sale.
The Court found no merit in the appellant’s arguments attacking minor inconsistencies in the testimonies, such as who precisely marked the evidence, as these did not undermine the essential fact of the sale. The operation was shown to be legitimate, and the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established. The Court also addressed the penalty, noting that the offense was committed prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659. Applying the law in force at the time, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P25,000.00 imposed by the trial court was correct. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed in toto.